People Pleasing in Relationships: Intimacy, Resentment, Conflict, and Self-Silencing
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
People pleasing in relationships is best understood as a descriptive pattern, not a diagnosis. It can involve repeatedly accommodating a partner, suppressing disagreement, minimizing one's own preferences, or trying to prevent disappointment at a personal cost. The pattern becomes psychologically meaningful when it is persistent and self-suppressive—especially when a person feels unable to express important needs, makes commitments they do not actually endorse, or experiences growing anxiety, exhaustion, resentment, or loss of authenticity.
The phrase also needs a careful scientific translation. Research does not treat “people pleasing” as one standardized disorder or a single, universally defined construct. Instead, relevant evidence is spread across literatures on self-silencing, rejection sensitivity, sacrifice motives, self-concealment, attachment, emotion regulation, and conflict communication. That matters because everyday kindness, compromise, generosity, caregiving, and sensitivity to a partner are not inherently signs of a problem. Healthy relationships require accommodation. The question is how freely it is chosen, how reciprocal it is, whether important information is being suppressed, and what happens to both partners over time.
This article focuses specifically on people pleasing inside romantic relationships: intimacy, resentment, conflict, self-silencing, power, and the difference between caring for a partner and disappearing from the relationship. It does not treat people pleasing as proof of childhood trauma, anxious attachment, codependency, abuse, or a mental disorder. Those are distinct concepts that may overlap in some cases and diverge sharply in others.
What Does People Pleasing in Relationships Mean?
In ordinary language, people pleasing usually describes a recurring tendency to prioritize another person's approval, comfort, preferences, or emotional reactions over one's own needs or honest self-expression. In a romantic relationship, that may mean agreeing when you disagree, accepting plans you do not want, taking on more responsibility than you can sustain, apologizing reflexively, withholding hurt or anger, or trying to manage a partner's mood so that conflict never fully arrives.
None of those behaviors, by itself, establishes a “people pleaser” identity. A person may stay quiet because the issue is trivial, because timing is poor, because compromise is fair, because they are tired, because a cultural norm favors restraint, or because speaking openly is unsafe. The same outward behavior can reflect generosity, strategic judgment, fear, habit, coercion, or simple preference. Psychological meaning comes from the wider pattern and context, not from one sentence or one act of accommodation.
Scientific and diagnostic status
There is no psychiatric diagnosis called people pleasing in the diagnostic frameworks used to classify mental disorders. The American Psychiatric Association describes DSM-5-TR as a manual for diagnosing and classifying mental disorders, and the World Health Organization's ICD-11 clinical descriptions provide the international diagnostic framework for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; World Health Organization, 2024). “People pleasing” is therefore more accurately treated as popular and therapeutic language for a possible interpersonal pattern rather than a clinical category.
This distinction protects two kinds of accuracy at once. It prevents normal cooperation from being pathologized, and it prevents serious clinical problems from being reduced to a self-help label. Someone can have difficulty saying no without having an anxiety disorder. Someone can self-silence without having an attachment disorder or personality disorder. And someone can meet criteria for a clinical disorder without “people pleasing” being the central mechanism.
Self-Silencing: The Closest Well-Developed Research Construct
One of the most useful research constructs for understanding the relationship side of people pleasing is self-silencing. Jack and Dill developed the Silencing the Self Scale to measure relational schemas involving externalized self-evaluation, care as self-sacrifice, inhibition of self-expression to preserve harmony, and a “divided self” in which outward presentation can diverge from inward feelings (Jack & Dill, 1992). The construct grew from research on women's depression and intimate relationships, so its historical origins and population context matter.
Three decades of later research have broadened the picture. A 2026 narrative review synthesized 126 studies using the Silencing the Self Scale and found that self-silencing has been studied across genders, cultures, health contexts, and relationship environments. The review emphasizes that self-silencing is better understood as context-sensitive cognition and behavior than as a fixed personality essence, and it identifies links with power inequities, conflict, rejection sensitivity, insecure attachment, emotion suppression, and depression while also documenting important heterogeneity (Jack, Brody, & Sikov, 2026).
A meta-analysis of 42 published and unpublished studies totaling 10,108 participants found a moderate positive association between self-silencing and depressive symptoms, with substantial heterogeneity across components and samples (Pintea & Gatea, 2021). That association is clinically relevant, but it does not mean that self-silencing is depression, that every self-silencing person is depressed, or that suppressing one disagreement causes a depressive disorder.
Self-silencing is also not simply a scientific synonym for people pleasing. People pleasing can include behaviors that are not captured by the Silencing the Self framework, while self-silencing can occur for reasons that have little to do with seeking approval. The overlap is useful because self-silencing gives researchers a more operationalized way to study one important pathway: restricting one's own voice to preserve connection or avoid relational consequences.
What People Pleasing Can Look Like in a Romantic Relationship
A persistent pattern often becomes visible across repeated decisions rather than in a dramatic single event. One partner may routinely defer on where the couple goes, whose family they visit, how money is spent, how chores are divided, what social plans are accepted, or what kind of affection feels comfortable. The important signal is not that one person sometimes gives way; all close relationships require that. The concern is a recurring inability to bring a genuine preference into the shared decision at all.
Agreement that is faster than reflection
A person may say yes before checking whether they have the time, energy, desire, or genuine consent to do what is being asked. The immediate aim may be to avoid disappointing a partner or triggering an argument. Later, the cost becomes clearer: fatigue, irritation, an unwanted obligation, or a sense that the partner “should have known” the answer was reluctant. The partner may have had no access to that hidden reluctance. This is one reason chronic people pleasing can create relational confusion without either person intending to deceive the other.
Conflict is prevented rather than resolved
People pleasing can turn disagreement into anticipatory accommodation. Instead of saying, “I see this differently,” the person edits the disagreement before it is spoken. That may reduce immediate tension, but it can also remove information that a couple needs in order to solve a real problem. Research on conflict communication shows why simple rules such as “never argue” or “always be gentle” are too crude: direct disagreement can sometimes support problem resolution when an issue is serious and changeable, while apparently cooperative communication can fail when it obscures the need for change (Overall & McNulty, 2017).
Care becomes difficult to distinguish from obligation
A person may take responsibility for scheduling, emotional support, family coordination, household tasks, or a partner's comfort because they genuinely want to contribute. The same activities can become burdensome when the person experiences them as compulsory, feels unable to renegotiate them, or treats the partner's disappointment as something that must be prevented at any cost. The behavior is therefore not defined by how much someone gives. Motivation, choice, cost, reciprocity, and the ability to revise an arrangement all matter.
Affection and sexual situations can become over-accommodated
People can also silence preferences around affection, physical closeness, or sex. This area requires particular care because compliance, desire, and consent are different concepts. One study of 146 young partnered women found higher self-silencing, sexual compliance, and nonconstructive communication in the subgroup reporting abuse, while qualitative responses also showed that some silence was situational and strategic (Samardzic et al., 2025). The sample and design do not justify treating all sexual accommodation as abuse, or all self-silencing as the same phenomenon. They do reinforce the importance of context, power, and safety when apparent agreement is being interpreted.
Kindness, Compromise, and Sacrifice Are Not the Same as People Pleasing
Close relationships work partly because partners sometimes put each other first. Research on sacrifice makes this especially clear. A review of romantic-relationship sacrifice found that the consequences of sacrifice are mixed: willingness to sacrifice and satisfaction with a sacrifice can correlate with better well-being, whereas costly sacrifices can take a toll on the giver, and actual sacrificial behavior is not uniformly beneficial or harmful (Righetti, Visserman, & Impett, 2022). A relationship in which nobody ever adjusts for the other would not be a realistic model of intimacy.
Motives matter. In daily and dyadic research, sacrifices made for approach-oriented reasons—such as wanting to support a partner or strengthen the relationship—were associated with better personal or relationship outcomes than sacrifices made for avoidance-oriented reasons, such as trying to prevent conflict or avoid a partner's negative reaction (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005; Impett et al., 2014). These studies do not supply a diagnostic test for people pleasing. They show why “I put my partner first” cannot be interpreted without asking what the act meant to the person, what it cost, and what they were trying to achieve.
A useful distinction is flexibility. Healthy compromise can include genuine preference, negotiation, and voluntary sacrifice; the person remains able to disagree and to say that a cost has become too high. A people-pleasing pattern is more likely when accommodation feels compulsory, disagreement feels relationally dangerous even when the situation is safe, and the person's own position repeatedly disappears before negotiation can begin.
How Chronic Self-Suppression Can Affect Intimacy
Intimacy requires more than harmony. It depends on partners having enough access to each other's actual experience to respond meaningfully. Classic diary research on intimacy found that self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness jointly contributed to feelings of intimacy in everyday interactions (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). That does not mean healthy couples must disclose every thought, nor that privacy is a relational failure. It means that closeness is partly built through meaningful, responsive access to each other's inner worlds.
Chronic self-suppression can interfere with that process in a straightforward way: a partner cannot respond accurately to needs, limits, preferences, or hurts that they do not know exist. Related research on self-concealment found that concealing distressing information from a romantic partner was associated with lower satisfaction and commitment in one study and, in a 14-day couple diary study, with lower daily relationship well-being; partner self-concealment also showed negative partner associations (Uysal et al., 2012). Self-concealment and people pleasing are distinct constructs, so this evidence supports a plausible relational pathway rather than a one-to-one equation.
The practical implication is subtle: authenticity is not the same as constant disclosure, bluntness, or emotional unloading. A relationship needs enough truthful information for mutual influence. If one person's preferences are routinely edited out, the couple may be making decisions with an incomplete map. The resulting distance can feel puzzling because the outward relationship may look cooperative while the unspoken internal relationship is becoming increasingly different.
Why Resentment Can Build After Repeated Accommodation
Resentment is common in popular descriptions of people pleasing, but it is not an automatic outcome and it is not a diagnostic marker. It can emerge when repeated accommodations are experienced as costly, involuntary, invisible, or unreciprocated. The person may begin to experience a gap between what they outwardly agreed to and what they inwardly wanted, especially when the agreement was motivated by fear of conflict or rejection rather than a freely chosen sacrifice.
Research provides several pieces of this pathway without proving a universal sequence. In a multimethod study of romantic sacrifice, suppressing emotions while sacrificing was associated with emotional and relational costs for the person making the sacrifice and with costs for the partner (Impett et al., 2012). Experimental work also found that women who had suppressed feelings and beliefs to please a source of rejection showed greater post-rejection hostility, supporting the idea that self-silencing can sometimes shape how later rejection is experienced (Romero-Canyas et al., 2013).
The resentment problem becomes especially confusing when the accommodation was never communicated as a sacrifice. One partner may think, “I have given up so much for you,” while the other thinks, “You told me this was fine.” Both experiences can be psychologically understandable. Resentment in that situation is information about a relational process that needs clarification; it is not proof that the other partner exploited the person, and it is not proof that the accommodating partner acted manipulatively.
Conflict Avoidance: Short-Term Peace, Long-Term Information Loss
Avoiding a conflict can be adaptive. Couples do not need to litigate every irritation. Delaying a conversation until both people are regulated, choosing not to pursue a low-value disagreement, or strategically disengaging from an unsafe interaction can all make sense. The problem is a rigid pattern in which important disagreements are repeatedly prevented from entering the relationship.
Research on adolescent romantic couples illustrates the complexity. In a study of 211 couples, higher self-silencing was associated with more conceding during conflict, poorer reported communication, more depressive symptoms, and greater frustration and discomfort reported by partners. Yet the study did not find significant overall actor or partner effects between self-silencing and relationship satisfaction; a negative correlation with satisfaction emerged among girls in gender-stratified analyses (Harper & Welsh, 2007). This is a useful warning against turning one communication pattern into a universal relationship verdict.
The broader conflict literature reaches a similar conclusion. Whether directness, opposition, affection, validation, or withdrawal helps depends partly on the seriousness and solvability of the problem and on the partners' ability to respond constructively (Overall & McNulty, 2017). People pleasing is therefore not harmful because it fails an abstract rule that everyone must “speak their truth” immediately. It becomes costly when avoidance blocks necessary information, repair, negotiation, or safety assessment.
How People Pleasing Can Affect the Other Partner
People-pleasing discussions often focus only on the accommodating person, but romantic relationships are systems of mutual influence. If one partner consistently says yes, minimizes hurt, or withholds preferences, the other partner may organize decisions around that expressed information. They may become accustomed to choosing, assume an arrangement is genuinely acceptable, or feel confused when resentment later appears. None of those reactions proves innocence or wrongdoing; they show why hidden preferences create coordination problems.
The partner's response once preferences become visible is more informative than the fact that a mismatch existed. A partner may be surprised, disappointed, or need time to renegotiate. Ordinary disagreement is compatible with a healthy relationship. A different picture emerges when expression is met with threats, intimidation, punishment, surveillance, isolation, sexual coercion, or deliberate attempts to control the person's autonomy. Those behaviors belong to the domain of coercion and abuse, not merely “communication difficulty.”
This distinction also prevents a common form of victim blaming. A person is not responsible for another person's abusive or coercive behavior because they were accommodating, conflict-avoidant, insecurely attached, or slow to set boundaries. More assertive communication can improve some ordinary relationship problems; it does not control whether another person chooses to abuse.
People Pleasing, Rejection Sensitivity, and Attachment
Fear of rejection is one plausible pathway into over-accommodation, but it is not the only one. Rejection sensitivity refers to a tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and strongly react to rejection. In a college sample of 410 participants, rejection sensitivity was associated with intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration through self-silencing in statistical mediation models (Inman & London, 2022). Mediation in observational survey data does not establish a simple causal chain, and these findings must never be read as making a victim's self-silencing responsible for violence.
Adult attachment research offers another relevant framework. Attachment anxiety and avoidance are research dimensions describing patterns of insecurity in close relationships; they are not diagnoses. Reviews of couple conflict indicate that attachment anxiety and avoidance can shape how people perceive and respond to relational threat and conflict (Feeney & Karantzas, 2017). Research on expressive suppression also suggests that its relational effects can vary with attachment anxiety rather than operating as a universally harmful behavior (Girme et al., 2021).
That makes attachment a useful context, not a universal explanation. Someone can people-please without high attachment anxiety, and someone can score high on attachment anxiety without becoming a chronic people pleaser. For a fuller account of adult attachment dimensions, relationship dynamics, conflict, and communication, see Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication.
Gender, Culture, and Power Change the Meaning of Silence
Self-silencing research began in a gendered theoretical context: the original model emphasized women's social inequality, traditional role expectations, and the relational costs of suppressing anger, needs, and self-definition. Later research has found self-silencing in men as well and has questioned whether all components of the original measurement model function identically across genders. The strongest contemporary interpretation is therefore contextual rather than essentialist: gender norms and social power can shape when silence is rewarded, expected, punished, or used for protection (Jack, Brody, & Sikov, 2026).
Culture matters for the same reason. Values such as harmony, family obligation, restraint, deference, or interdependence cannot be classified as pathology merely because they differ from an individualistic ideal of constant self-assertion. A 2026 qualitative study of 53 young adults at international universities in Thailand found that self-silencing varied across relationships within the same person; perceived security, family learning, gendered meanings, and Thai cultural concepts all contributed to how participants understood silence (Grothaus, 2026). The study is small and qualitative, but it usefully demonstrates why context should not be erased.
Power also changes what “choice” means. Financial dependence, immigration status, caregiving obligations, disability, social isolation, housing insecurity, or a partner's controlling behavior can alter the consequences of disagreement. A communication pattern that looks passive from outside may be strategic within a constrained environment. This is one reason relationship advice should assess context before prescribing bluntness, confrontation, or immediate disclosure as universal solutions.
When Silence Is Strategic Rather Than a Stable Pattern
Not every instance of self-silencing is evidence that a person has “lost themselves.” The most recent research increasingly treats silence as potentially relationship-specific and situational. In Grothaus's 2026 qualitative study, participants described being expressive in some relationships and guarded in others, with perceived security differentiating contexts. In Samardzic and colleagues' study of young women, many participants described communication as important while also using self-suppression situationally, including in relationships where abuse was present (Grothaus, 2026; Samardzic et al., 2025).
This matters clinically and ethically. Silence can reflect fear, social learning, tactical de-escalation, uncertainty, fatigue, cultural norms, or a deliberate decision that a conversation is not worth having. The useful question is not “Did you stay quiet?” but “What function did staying quiet serve in this context, how freely was it chosen, and what were the short- and long-term consequences?”
When the Relationship Is Unsafe, Ordinary Communication Advice Has Limits
People pleasing should never be used to explain why someone was abused. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines intimate partner violence to include physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression; psychological aggression includes communication intended to harm a partner mentally or emotionally or to exert control over them (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2026). Coercive control can involve monitoring, isolation, threats, financial restriction, or other tactics that constrain autonomy.
In those contexts, appeasement, delayed confrontation, strategic silence, or compliance may be attempts to reduce danger. Telling a person simply to “set a stronger boundary,” “communicate better,” or “stop people pleasing” can ignore the actual power structure. A boundary cannot force an abusive partner to respect it, and assertiveness cannot guarantee safety. Responsibility for abusive behavior remains with the person choosing that behavior.
When there is fear, coercive control, stalking, threats, sexual violence, or physical violence, individualized safety planning and specialized support are more appropriate than relying on ordinary couples communication techniques. The National Domestic Violence Hotline provides individualized safety-planning resources for people experiencing abuse (National Domestic Violence Hotline). Local resources and emergency services differ by country, so support should be matched to the person's location and immediate level of risk.
What a More Mutual Relationship Pattern Looks Like
A more mutual pattern is not one in which each partner protects every preference and never sacrifices. Romantic partnership includes dependence, obligations, compromise, shared decisions, care, and sometimes substantial sacrifice. Mutuality means both people's subjectivity can enter the relationship: each person can have preferences, limits, needs, and emotions that matter even when the final decision does not give both people everything they want.
In practice, mutuality is flexible. Sometimes one partner gives more because the other is ill, grieving, studying, unemployed, pregnant, caregiving, or under extraordinary stress. Sometimes an unequal arrangement is freely chosen and works well. The important questions are whether the arrangement is discussable, whether consent and participation can be revisited, whether contributions are recognized, and whether one partner's personhood is treated as subordinate by default.
A relationship can also contain healthy disappointment. If you decline a plan, ask for more help, want a different weekend, or disagree about money, a partner may feel disappointed. That feeling alone does not prove that your request was wrong, and it does not prove that the partner is manipulative. Mutual relationships make room for competing preferences and then work with the conflict rather than treating one person's discomfort as an emergency that the other must erase.
What to Do If You Recognize a People-Pleasing Pattern
The first useful step is observation rather than self-diagnosis. Notice where your outward answers diverge from your inward preferences. Ask what you expected would happen if you answered honestly: disappointment, an argument, rejection, withdrawal, retaliation, or simply an awkward moment? Distinguishing the feared consequence from the actual consequence helps identify whether the pattern is habit, anxiety, relationship-specific learning, or a response to a genuinely unsafe environment.
In a basically safe relationship, small acts of accurate communication can provide better information than dramatic declarations. That might mean naming a preference before automatically deferring, asking for time before committing, correcting an assumption, or acknowledging that a previous “yes” was reluctant. The goal is not to become maximally confrontational. It is to increase the accuracy with which each partner can know and respond to the other.
It can also help to separate three questions that people pleasing tends to collapse: What do I want? What does my partner want? What do we decide together? The first two questions can have different answers without the relationship having failed. Negotiation begins only after both positions exist. If one partner's answer is chronically edited out before the conversation starts, the couple is not yet negotiating the real conflict.
A complete change plan may also involve boundary skills and assertive communication, but those are separate skills with their own evidence and limitations. A boundary generally concerns one's own participation or access rather than controlling another person's behavior, and assertiveness includes respect for the other person's rights and dignity. Neither guarantees agreement, and neither should be treated as a universal script in a power-imbalanced or dangerous relationship.
When Professional Support May Help
Professional support may be useful when self-suppression is persistent, causes significant distress, repeatedly disrupts relationships, or is entangled with anxiety, depression, trauma symptoms, difficulty identifying needs, or longstanding fear of rejection. A clinician can assess the actual clinical picture rather than treating “people pleaser” as a diagnosis. Treatment can then target the relevant processes—such as anxiety, avoidance, emotion regulation, interpersonal learning, or depressive symptoms—rather than a social-media label.
Relationship-focused therapy can also be useful for some couples when both partners can participate safely and honestly. If coercive control or violence is present, ordinary joint communication work may not address the central safety problem; specialized individual support and safety planning should take priority. The appropriate intervention depends on the relationship context, the person's goals, and any clinical conditions that are actually present.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can people pleasing ruin a relationship?
It can strain a relationship, but it does not determine the outcome. Persistent self-silencing can reduce accurate communication, make needs harder to respond to, and contribute to resentment or emotional distance. Research on self-silencing, self-concealment, sacrifice, and conflict supports several of these pathways, but no study justifies the claim that a person who people-pleases will inevitably have an unhealthy or failed relationship.
Why can people pleasing lead to resentment?
Resentment can develop when a person repeatedly gives up preferences or takes on costs they do not freely endorse, especially when the sacrifice is motivated by avoiding conflict or rejection and the partner does not know a sacrifice is being made. Emotional suppression during sacrifice has been associated with relational costs (Impett et al., 2012). Resentment is still context-dependent: it can reflect an unfair relationship, an uncommunicated expectation, an avoidance-driven sacrifice, or several factors at once.
Is people pleasing manipulative?
Not inherently. A person may accommodate because they are anxious, conflict-avoidant, highly approval-seeking, uncertain about their own preference, socially conditioned to defer, or making a genuine prosocial choice. Manipulation refers to how influence is attempted and with what tactics, not to the mere fact that someone is accommodating. If a person deliberately gives in order to create hidden debt, induce guilt, or control a partner later, those behaviors deserve separate examination rather than being assumed from the label “people pleaser.”
Is people pleasing the same as anxious attachment?
No. Adult attachment anxiety is a research dimension involving insecurity about a partner's availability and rejection, while people pleasing is an informal umbrella term for certain interpersonal behaviors. The concepts can overlap, but neither implies the other. Attachment is best understood dimensionally and contextually rather than used as a diagnosis or a complete explanation for someone's relationship behavior. See Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication for the broader evidence base.
Is people pleasing a trauma response or the “fawn response”?
Sometimes appeasing behavior occurs in the context of trauma or threat, but people pleasing does not prove a trauma history. “Fawn” is widely used in trauma-informed and popular psychology discourse, but it is not a standalone DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. It should not be presented as a universally established biological stress response that explains every accommodating behavior. When threat or abuse is actually present, the person's behavior should be understood in the safety context rather than judged against ordinary relationship advice.
Is compromise a form of people pleasing?
Not by itself. Compromise is a normal part of interdependent relationships. The same is true of generosity, caregiving, and sacrifice. Concern rises when one partner cannot reliably express a position, experiences accommodation as compulsory, repeatedly incurs costs they cannot renegotiate, or feels responsible for preventing every negative reaction from the other person. Research on sacrifice specifically shows that motives, costs, and satisfaction with the sacrifice matter (Righetti, Visserman, & Impett, 2022).
What if my partner is upset when I stop automatically agreeing?
Disappointment or pushback is not, by itself, evidence of manipulation or abuse. A relationship may need to renegotiate routines that were built around one person's automatic accommodation. Look at the quality of the response: Is there room for discussion, mutual influence, and repair, or are there threats, humiliation, punishment, surveillance, isolation, or coercion? The broader pattern matters more than whether the partner likes a particular answer.
How do I stop people pleasing in my relationship?
Start by making the pattern observable: notice automatic yeses, delayed resentment, unspoken preferences, and the situations in which disagreement feels especially difficult. In a safe relationship, practice giving accurate low-stakes information before trying to overhaul every dynamic at once. Name preferences, ask for time before committing, negotiate responsibilities explicitly, and allow the other person to have a reaction without making that reaction your sole decision rule. If fear, coercion, or clinical symptoms are central, the next step should be adapted to those realities rather than reduced to a communication script.
Does feeling guilty about saying no mean I am doing something wrong?
No single emotional response can answer that question. Guilt can sometimes reflect a real ethical responsibility, such as breaking an important agreement or neglecting a legitimate obligation. It can also arise when a person has learned to treat another person's disappointment as evidence of wrongdoing. The task is to evaluate the actual responsibility, relationship agreement, and consequences rather than assuming either that guilt is always correct or that guilt is always conditioning to be ignored.
For the broader construct across relationships and other contexts, see People Pleasing: Signs, Causes, Relationships, and How to Change the Pattern.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2022). The organization of DSM-5-TR. https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/0191c8c8-4151-4bde-9cba-263db78a2734/APA-DSM5TR-TheOrganizationofDSM.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). About intimate partner violence. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/
Feeney, J. A., & Karantzas, G. C. (2017). Couple conflict: Insights from an attachment perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 60–64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28813296/
Girme, Y. U., Peters, B. J., Baker, L. R., Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Reis, H. T., Jamieson, J. P., & Sigal, M. J. (2021). Attachment anxiety and the curvilinear effects of expressive suppression on individuals' and partners' outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 524–547. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32816510/
Grothaus, C. (2026). When silence is selective: Self-silencing across relationship contexts among young adults. Behavioral Sciences, 16(6), 963. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42352796/
Harper, M. S., & Welsh, D. P. (2007). Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with relational and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072601
Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 327–344. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16248717/
Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O., Oveis, C., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D. (2012). Suppression sours sacrifice: Emotional and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 707–720. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22389432/
Impett, E. A., Gere, J., Kogan, A., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D. (2014). How sacrifice impacts the giver and the recipient: Insights from approach-avoidance motivational theory. Journal of Personality, 82(5), 390–401. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24007506/
Inman, E. M., & London, B. (2022). Self-silencing mediates the relationship between rejection sensitivity and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), NP12475–NP12494. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33703956/
Jack, D. C., Brody, L. R., & Sikov, J. (2026). Advancing the next generation of research on self-silencing and depression: A narrative review and synthesis of three decades of research. Sex Roles, 92, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01637-8
Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9599440/
National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). Plan for safety. https://www.thehotline.org/plan-for-safety/
Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28025652/
Pintea, S., & Gatea, A. (2021). The relationship between self-silencing and depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 40(4), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2021.40.4.333
Righetti, F., Visserman, M. L., & Impett, E. A. (2022). Sacrifices: Costly prosocial behaviors in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 74–79. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34571369/
Romero-Canyas, R., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., & Downey, G. (2013). After all I have done for you: Self-silencing accommodations fuel women's post-rejection hostility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 732–740. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23687385/
Samardzic, T., Barata, P. C., Morton, M., & Yen, J. (2025). Young women's silencing-type behaviors in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(13–14), 3014–3043. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39126230/
Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., Knee, C. R., & Bush, A. L. (2012). The association between self-concealment from one's partner and relationship well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 39–51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22109250/
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263